Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 315 (HP)

Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur v. Mahender Kumar

2017-04-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 4th June, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC No. 39 of 2006/03, titled Mahender Kumar versus Chhota Ram & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,33,500/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and owners and drivers of both the vehicles, i.e. car bearing registration No. HP-24-0007 and car bearing registration No. PB-02U- 2934 were saddled with liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The appellant-owner of vehicle-car bearing registration No. HP-24-0007 has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. The claimant, drivers of both the offending vehicles, owner of car No. PB-02U-2934 and its insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far the same relates to them. 4. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that drivers of both the offending vehicles were driving their vehicles rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries and suffered 9% permanent disability. FIR was lodged against drivers of both the offending vehicles. 5. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to? ….OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 4 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, with what effect? …OPR-5 4. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 7. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has rightly held that drivers of both the offending vehicles had driven the said vehicles, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time and caused the accident. 8. …OPR-5 4. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 7. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has rightly held that drivers of both the offending vehicles had driven the said vehicles, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time and caused the accident. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to show as to how the driver of vehicle No. HP-24-0007 was not rash and negligent while driving the said vehicle. The driver and owner of another vehicle has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1. 9. Having said so, the discussion made by the Tribunal in paras-9 to 18 of the impugned award needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. Before dealing with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issue No. 3. Issue No. 3. 11. It was for respondent No. 5-insurer of vehicle No. PB-02U-2934 to discharge the onus, has not led any evidence, thus has failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 12. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, was taken to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and remained on medical and earned leave w.e.f. 29.06.2002 to 31.01.2003. 13. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 20 to 30 of the impugned award relating to issue No. 2 and has awarded the just and appropriate compensation, is accordingly upheld. 14. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld. 15. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 16. The appeal stands disposed of, as indicated above. 17. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.